Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

EAST SUSSEX BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Council House Sales

Mr Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the progress made so far with the sale of council houses to sitting tenants in Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): We are not monitoring individual right to buy applications, but my impression is that good progress is being made in the majority of cases.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend welcome the decision of the Labour Party national executive last week to

overturn the decision by the Labour Party conference at Blackpool concerning the repurchase of council houses? Does he not think that the original decision at Blackpool was foolish and unfair?

Mr. Roberts: I saw the report, and I welcome the news that the NEC has overturned the decision taken at last year's Labour Party conference, which was wholly against the interests of council tenants who had bought their homes. The NEC described that decision as punitive. It would be helpful if the Opposition would declare their position and promise that they will not interfere with tenants who have bought their homes and who, in time, will wish to resell on the open market.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not time that the Government gave priority to building houses rather than selling them, because my area is now approaching a chronic housing shortage? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that thousands of building workers are now on the dole while the materials are home produced and available? Will he bear in mind that the Government, in their short period of office, have put over 1 million people out of work? Is it not time now to concentrate on putting a few of those people back to work?

Mr. Roberts: The answer to the housing problem is not"build, build, build," because we have sufficient housing stock. We need to make better use of that housing stock. That is precisely the aim of the Government's policies.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: What is the Minister's estimate of the number of persons in Wales who will be on local authority waiting lists at the end of his period as Minister, as a result of his policy of selling council houses? Will he explain why his Department is not monitoring that aspect of his policy, as it is not monitoring so many other aspects of his Department's social policy?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that there is no such thing as a standard waiting list. Therefore, the waiting lists are not a true guide to the real need for housing in Wales.

Mr. Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that much public sector housing in Wales is in urgent need of repair? Does


he not agree that one of the ways in which local authorities can fund the necessary repairs is by ensuring that as many council houses as possible are sold, because they will be able to use their capital receipts to that end? Will he publicise the desirability of people applying to buy their council houses before 3 April this year so that valuations for purchase purposes will be as at August of last year?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right on all points. It is important that council tenants should exercise their right to buy and apply before 3 April because the valuation they are given will then be as at 8 August last year. The housing authorities can, of course, supplement their allocations by the net proceeds of council house sales.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister realise that this policy is irrelevant to most of the people of Wales, and is certainly irrelevant to Wales' basic housing problems? During the next few years local authorities, if the Government achieve their targets, will be selling more houses than they will be building. The Opposition believe that it is rubbish for any Minister to tell the House that there is already too much public sector housing in Wales. What foundation does the hon. Gentleman think he is laying for the next generation by blindly adding the prospect of homelessness to the prospect of joblessness?

Mr. Roberts: The sale of council houses does not decrease the housing stock by one house. The proceeds of council house sales can be well utilised by local authorities to improve the housing stock that they retain.

Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the facilities and completion of Ysbyty Gwynedd district general hospital.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The first phase of Ysbyty Gwynedd will provide most of the services found at a modern district general hospital with the exception of obstetric, gynaecology and paediatric services, which will continue for the present at the St. David's hospital, Bangor. The Gwynedd health authority intends, however, to move these services to Ysbyty Gwynedd and is currently preparing plans to do so in the second phase construction. Completion of the main contract for Ysbyty Gwynedd phase I is expected in May this year, and the commissioning programme provides for the hospital coming into use early in 1982.

Mr. Best: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and the fact that the Government are spending more in real terms on the National Health Service than have any previous Government. However, is he aware of the great strength of feeling in my constituency that there should be at least one community hospital on Anglesey? Will he do everything possible to convince my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other members of the Government of the great need for community hospitals in order to bring medical care closer to the people?

Mr. Roberts: I appreciate my hon. Friend's views, but he will know that the Caernarvon and Anglesey hospital, which Ysbyty Gwynedd is to replace, served both counties and was highly regarded on both sides of the Menai Strait. The new hospital will have 530 beds and will have cost £23 million. It will have all the modern facilities that our people in that part of the world will require.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that to get the maximum benefit out of the new hospital requires a substantial increase in joint care planning between the health authority and the social services department in the area of Gwynedd, a function that is way behind in Wales compared with most parts of England? What initiatives will the Government take to ensure that joint care planning gets off the ground in Gwynedd?

Mr. Roberts: The area health authority and the county social services department have a co-terminosity by which I lay great store, because I believe that from that co-terminosity co-operation will spring. It is primarily for the area health authority and the social services department to collaborate on future planning under guidance from the Government.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest number of unemployed persons in Wales, seasonally adjusted and including young persons, and expressed as a percentage of the population; what were the figures for May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): The numbers unemployed, seasonally adjusted, excluding school leavers under the age of 18 —but including other young people—in February 1981 and May 1979 were 136,800 and 81,300 respectively. As a proportion of the employee population the total represented 12·6 per cent. and 7·5 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Jones: In view of those desperately serious figures will the Minister assure us that when the Secretary of State returns from Japan he will make a report about his visit with particular reference to inward investment and giving an up-to-date view of the Nissan-Datsun project? On the latter, does the Minister accept the potential of my constituency as a site for Nissan-Datsun, given the nearness of RTZ's aluminium smelter and Ferodo's Caernarvon factory, which should be factors in its favour? May I have an assurance that the Government will keep in mind the truly horrendous unemployment figures in my constituency and will locate some major industry in the area very soon?

Mr. Roberts: The question of a statement is one for my right hon. Friend. We all share concern about the unemployment figures and the human suffering that is involved throughout the Principality. We are aware of the high level of unemployment in the Shotton area. Nissan will not be directed as to where it should go but will make its own choice of location. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is involved in a mission to Japan, and he has met representatives of the Nissan company, although he has not visited it. He told the company that there were suitable sites in Wales and that it would be warmly welcomed to the Principality if it chose to go there. I am sure that that welcome covers the Shotton area. My right hon. Friend emphasised that he was speaking as a United Kingdom Minister and that the same level of help and co-operation would be found in other regions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions and answers seem to me to be much longer today. I know that we have missed St. David's Day, but the questions and answers have been very long.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I fully support the efforts of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) to attract Nissan investment to his constituency. However, is not the principal attraction of Wales, or the United Kingdom generally, as a place for Nissan to invest the fact that it will provide access to the whole of the European market? Is not that advantage gravely prejudiced by threats from the Labour Party to take us out of the EEC?

Mr. Roberts: There is no certainty that the Nissan company will set up in the United Kingdom. It is engaged in a feasibility study. It is certain, however, that it would not choose to establish investment in an area outside the EEC. The same consideration applied to the Ford motor company when it set up its engine works at Waterton.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the terrifying reality that 1,000 jobs are disappearing in Wales every week—200 every working day? Is it not a measure of the massive scale of the Government-induced disaster in Wales that even if we succeed in securing the Nissan car project that will merely offset four weeks of the Government's job destruction, and that it will not do that until the mid-1980s? What do the Government intend to do now—not in the mid-1980s—for the 146,000 people who are unemployed in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: There is no point in speculating about the Nissan company.
We inherited what was, to say the least, an unenviable position in the steelworks which were grossly overmanned and faced an inevitable number of redundancies. We are seeking to develop the infrastructure with the building of advanced factories so that we shall be ready to take advantage of the upturn in the economy when it comes.

Welsh Development Agency

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will assess the impact of the Welsh Development Agency on employment services in Wales.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The Welsh Development Agency's objectives include the provision, maintenance and safeguarding of employment In Wales and its record in this respect, as in others, is a very sound one.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not correct that some local authorities in Wales, including Gwent and a number of others, are receiving additional funds from the Welsh Development Agency for the setting up of special measures units under the Manpower Services Commission special measures programme? If that is the case, why is it happening only in Wales and in Scotland? Why is it that the Welsh are able to get these funds, which are not available to other parts of the United Kingdom, including the Northern region, where unemployment is considerably higher?

Mr. Roberts: I have no specific responsibility for institutional arrangements in the North of England, but I recall my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Industry telling the House on 9 February that all the powers held by the Welsh Development Agency are held, although by different agencies, in the North. His judgment was that to provide an extra unit of bureaucracy would confuse rather than increase the prospects for the North.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister tell us when he intends that his Department and the Development Board

for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency should meet with the GKN group, which announced last week the closure in Mid-Wales of the largest industrial employer in Mid-Wales, with 427 people being made redundant?

Mr. Roberts: I have no information about arrangements for such a meeting but I shall keep in touch with the hon. Member.

Mr. Best: The record of the Welsh Development Agency in advance factory building has been extremely good. Will my hon. Friend agree that perhaps now the WDA should be concentrating more upon its investment function, and particularly on trying to stimulate the expansion of smaller businesses in Wales by the provision of much-needed finance?

Mr. Roberts: The Welsh Development Agency has, of course, three roles. My hon. Friend has referred to two. I think that the agency has the balance right and will continue to develop in both ways.

Mr. Coleman: Will the Minister agree that the answer to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about the Welsh Development Agency is that there was a Labour Government in office at the time, and that he, the Minister, voted against the Welsh Development Agency? But, turning to the position in Llanelli, and in Llanelli Steel, is the Minister aware that in addition to the 1,000-plus workers in Llanelli who are about to become redundant, there is also a problem in Neath at Baglan Engineering? Can the Minister give any clear information as to what are the companys intentions in respect of that foundry at Neath?

Mr. Roberts: I received a letter from the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), addressed to my right hon. Friend, only a minute or two before Question Time. I am afraid that I can give the hon. Gentleman no information at the moment, but we shall look into the matter and get in touch with him within 24 hours.

Centre of Excellence (Gwent)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received calling for the establishment of a centre of excellence in Gwent; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The initiative launched by my right hon. Friend in regard to the education and training needs of high technology industry has met with an encouraging response. Several colleges have expressed interest in the idea of a centre of excellence in this field and called attention to their own facilities.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister bear in mind that two microchip establishments are now to be situated in south Gwent, and that we hope that there are more to come? Would it not be useful now if an appropriate course, together with equipment, were to be established at the Gwent college of higher education? Can the Minister say what is being done about this important matter?

Mr. Roberts: I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) supports our initiative in trying to establish a centre of excellence. We have met members of industry and of educational institutions to seek their


ideas on this matter. I have proposed to the chairman of the Gwent county council that we should meet soon to discuss the matter further.

Mr. Rhodes James: Will my hon. Friend take note of the example of Cambridge, where the key factor is the link between industry and higher education, and where it is of mutual benefit to both? Will he agree that if this can be made at the initiation of the project it will be to the advantage of all?

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are particularly anxious to provide the necessary back-up facilities in Wales, so that we can support any industries—microelectronic industries or other modern industries—which come into the Principality.

Welsh Language

Mr. Garel-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to allocate the additional £½ million Her Majesty's Government are making available for the promotion of the Welsh language in 1981–82.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The additional £½ million will be used to provide grant support for the Royal National Eisteddfod of Wales, to assist Urdd Gobaith Cymru with new developments at its camp at Llangrannog, and to increase the grants to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, the Welsh Books Council and Bwrdd Ffilmiau Cymraeg. My right hon. Friend has also conditionally promised financial support to the Nant Gwrtheyrn Trust. We intend to publish details of the grants to be made next year at the time of publication of the public expenditure White Paper.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that that statement will be widely welcomed by all those who take an interest in the Welsh language? Will he confirm that both the financial and moral commitment of the Government to supporting the Welsh language have not been equalled by any Government in living memory?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I visited Llangrannog and the Urdd camp there on the eve of St. David's Day and addressed representatives of some of the movements that I mentioned in my reply, on Government policy towards the Welsh language, and my statement was very well received.

Dr. Roger Thomas: The Minister appears to have been even more generous to the Welsh language than the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) suggested, by several hundred thousand pounds. In Llanelli over the weekend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Dr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that 80 per cent. of Welsh toddlers are in need of nursery education? What will be his degree of generosity towards those future Welsh men and women?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that a movement such as the Welsh League of Youth is not composed of only Welsh-speaking children. I am told that more than 60 per cent. of its child members are not Welsh speakers—initially, at any rate.
There is a substantial new element in the increase, but the reason why the figure appears so substantial may be that we have changed from November 1979 survey prices to 1981–82 outturn prices.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must move on.

Public Sector Rented Housing

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the effect of Government policy on the availability and conditions of public sector rented housing in Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: No Minister can ever be satisfied so long as there is inadequate housing anywhere in Wales. But, unavoidably, housing has had to bear its share of the necessary reductions in public expenditure. We have tried to ensure that local authorities and housing associations have a sufficient allocation in 1981–82 to enable them to undertake worthwhile programmes. Moreover, local authorities now have wide discretion to use their total capital allocations as they see fit. But, of course, the provision of public sector rented accommodation is but one approach to meeting housing needs.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that the net effects of the Government's housing policies on Arfon borough council tenants is that their rents are being increased from an average of £8·50 a week to £12·50 a week, an increase of £4 or 47 per cent.? Does he think that it is realistic for the Government to pursue a policy of 6 per cent. increase in wages when they are pursuing policies as devastating as this in terms of hardship for the rent payers of Arfon? Will he now investigate the effects of Government policy on rented council accommodation, and have a moratorium on these increases until he has done so?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will know that, had the last Government kept increases in rent in line with increases in earnings, we should not have had to suggest these large increases that are taking place now. He will also be aware that council tenants can be helped by rent rebate schemes and also by supplementary benefit. He will be aware that about 45 per cent. of council tenants in this country are assisted by these schemes.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister take any pride in the fact that last year fewer houses were built in Wales than in any year since 1936? If he is satisfied about the position of council housing, will he have a word with all the directors of housing in the Welsh districts? Is he aware that they have estimated that by 1984, we shall need an average of 21,000 extra houses a year? Last year, only about 7,000 starts were made. Is the Minister satisfied with that?

Mr. Roberts: I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman was quite so vociferous when the Labour Party was in office. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of some of the figures. In 1975, 8,336 houses were built. In 1979, 4,351 houses were built. That is a drop of nearly 50 per cent.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Is the Minister aware that with the baby boom and the massive attendances at ante-natal clinics there are record numbers of married couples with small children on waiting lists?

Mr. Roberts: Of course, I am aware of the housing problem. Indeed, I referred to it in my original reply. We do not—I stress"do not"—believe that the answer is necessarily to be found in new build. The answer lies in making better use of the existing housing stock. The Housing Act 1980 enables local authorities to make better use of their existing stocks.

Colliery Closures

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the extent to which National Coal Board colliery closure proposals will affect the number of unemployed in Wales.

Mr. Michael Roberts: The NCB has withdrawn its proposals for an accelerated programme of pit closures and will be, as I understand, looking with the unions at pits in difficulty under the normal consultative procedures.

Mr. Powell: Although I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and although I appreciate the humiliation and the retreat that the miners forced on the Government, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no reneging on the promises that were given to the miners before they withdrew the threat to strike? Will he also give a commitment that there will be no pressure to close collieries such as that put on miners to close collieries in my constituency, including that at Coegnant? What support will the Minister and his right hon. Friends give to the development of the new pit in Margam?

Mr. Roberts: I can give no information about the proposals for development at Margam. As the unions have accepted, there have been, and always will be, closures in an extractive industry. It is the pace of those closures that is at issue. The NCB and the unions are looking at the subject again in the light of discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Skeet: Although I accept that there are established procedures, does not my hon. Friend agree that it is the new pits that tend to be profitable and that tend to give the mining industry a great future rather than those—there are several in Wales—that are nearly exhausted?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is quite right. The investment in the new pits will ensure the coal industry's future into the twentieth century. I make no comment on the amount of coal available in the pits in South Wales.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Minister congratulate the South Wales miners on compelling the Government to have second thoughts about their mad monetarist policies, which have not been applied in the same way to the coal industry as they have to steel, textiles, manufacturing industry and the rest of Britain's industry?

Mr. Roberts: When the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) looks at that comment in Hansard tomorrow, he will not find that it has been particularly helpful to anybody, including the mining industry.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my hon. Friend confirm to coal miners in Wales that the Government are totally committed to"Plan for Coal" and that it holds out a brilliant future to the coal industry? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that many of the great benefits deriving from the productivity of the South Wales miners and others have not yet shown through, because the Government have not been able to proceed with some of the necessary closures?

Mr. Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has made it perfectly clear that the Government are committed to the"Plan for Coal" and that we consider that there is a great future for the mining industry.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not a fact that, as regards that recent issue, the Secretary of State misled the Cabinet about the strength of feeling in the Welsh coalfields?
Is the Minister aware that there are clear yardsticks by which the sincerity of the Government's belated conversion will be judged? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure the maximum use of Welsh coal at Margam and at Llanwern, beginning with the 300,000 tonne tranche that is about to be ordered at Margam? Does the Minister realise that if he wishes to show confidence in the fact that Wales has a long-term future in coal, it is imperative to give the go-ahead to the Margam pit project?

Mr. Roberts: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend did not mislead the Cabinet. As regards the import of coal, I am aware of the importance of both the CEGB and the BSC as customers for coal, particularly in relation to the South Wales coalfields. My right hon. Friend has asked them to be as helpful as they can.

Thoracic Surgery (South-West Wales)

Dr. Roger Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement on his discussions with health authorities on the provision of thoracic surgery for South-West Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The terms of a joint appointment of a consultant surgeon are under discussion by the West Glamorgan and South Glamorgan health authorities. The basis on which the surgeon's services should be shared between them has not yet been settled, but following discussions with officials of the Welsh Office on Friday 27 February. I am hopeful that agreement will soon be reached.

Dr. Thomas: Does not the Minister realise that the compromise solution for the continuance of some degree of thoracic surgery at Morriston is likely to be the worst solution? Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it amounts to a capitulation by West Glamorgan? Is he aware of how remote certain areas of Dyfed are and that the question of the non-availability of emergency services still has to be resolved?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware that the proposal for a joint appointment was the outcome of advice given by a working party of the statutory body, the Welsh Medical Committee. That was confirmed by a meeting of area medical officers, which was held on 22 January. Will the hon. Gentleman also realise that the Royal College of Surgeons has a say in this?

Mr. Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government's partial change of mind is a triumph of local opinion over the medical establishment in Wales, which has shown an increasing desire to centralise both on this issue, and on the decision about the plastic surgery unit?

Mr. Roberts: As the Minister with responsibility for the Health Service in Wales, I would not like to overrule the advice of a statutory medical adivisory committee. It is as a result of that committee's recommendations and of our attempt to make that advice acceptable throughout South Wales that the proposals for a joint appointment are in hand.

Council House Sales

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to ensure that council tenants are fully aware of the benefits of applying for the right to buy their homes before 3 April.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: In association with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, we have embarked on a press publicity campaign which reminds tenants of their right to buy and points out that from 3 April 1981 valuations of dwellings will cease to be fixed as at 8 August 1980. I hope that all eligible tenants will consider the advantage of applying for their right to buy before 3 April if local house prices have risen since August.

Mr. Hooson: Although my hon. Friend's efforts to provide information are most welcome, will he urge local authorities to press ahead with valuations and with the sale of council houses?

Mr. Roberts: I know that there have been some delays. However, that may be understandable, because in the last quarter of last year there were about 10,000 applications for the right to buy. In the event of delay, a complaint or report can be made to the Welsh Office. We should then chase up the authority concerned.

Mr. Roy Hughes: As regards the controversial issue of the sale of council houses, would it not be wiser if the Government were to restore the"local" to local government and give them discretion in this matter? Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Newport is in an absurd position over the sale of Aur-yr-yn prefab sites? Is he aware that perfectly law-abiding councillors now find themselves in defiance of the law?

Mr. Roberts: I am well aware of the situation in Newport and of the position of the council in this matter. However, when the council has had time to consider it, I think that it will ensure that individual council tenants, including the tenants of these prefabricated dwellings and ground floor flats, have the right to buy as outlined in the 1980 Act. The general principle of leaving discretion to the local authorities was thrashed out in the course of passing the 1980 Act.

Mr. Wrigley: Is the Minister aware that for the first 35 council houses sold in my area—those sold without needing a local authority mortgage—the local authority got only £120,000, or an average of less than £3,500 per house? In view of this situation, will the Minister take steps to waive the Government's 50 per cent. clawback so that local authorities will have more funds available to build more houses, to minimise the damage that is being done to council house stock by this policy?

Mr. Roberts: I still think that the sum obtained by the local authority on those sales is significant and can be put to good use.

Mr. Anderson: How many houses can be built for that sum?

Mr. Roberts: It is a question not of how many houses can be built for that sum, but of how many houses can be repaired and improved for sale.

Mr. Best: Does my hon. Friend agree that future generations will acclaim the right to buy as a major social

advance? Does he also agree that, because there is a higher rate of owner-occupation in Wales than in other parts of the United Kingdom, what the Government have done by giving the people of Wales the right to buy their council houses is completely in line with their wishes expressed through actual practice in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: The very fact that there were about 10,000 applications for the right to buy in the last quarter of last year surely indicates that home ownership in Wales is very popular. I am sure that there will be many more such applications. I hope that many will be made before 3 April so that the tenants can have a valuation as of 8 August last year.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not an abuse to the taxpayer and the ratepayer, taking the example given by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), that the Government are giving away public assets at a fraction of the price that it will cost those same ratepayers and taxpayers to build replacements?

Mr. Roberts: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that houses sold are not lost or destroyed. They are being sold to secure tenants who are already in them. Of course, there is a net profit to be made by the local authority, and it can add that to its housing allocation and use it to improve the existing stock.

Community Hospital, Mold

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to give authority for work to begin on a new community hospital at Mold.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I shall announce the health building programme for 1981–82 soon after the forthcoming White Paper on public expenditure has been published next week, but I cannot comment beforehand on individual schemes.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of Mold, who have raised a large sum of money by truly heroic efforts and voluntary activities, will be eagerly and impatiently awaiting the Minister's decision in this matter?

Mr. Roberts: I certainly appreciate the importance of the scheme and am fully aware of the strength of local support for it. It is the health authority's top priority. I know that the hospital's league of friends has been very active in raising funds for the hospital. I take this opportunity to say how greatly this is appreciated. This is a first-class example of the role that the voluntary sector can play.

Mr. Barry Jones: A start on this important project will help the flagging fortunes of the North-East Wales construction industry. Will the Minister confirm that the hospital, when built, will adequately cater for the township of Buckley in my constituency?

Mr. Roberts: All concerned in the planning and preparation of this scheme have recognised its priority. There has been no delay in bringing it to the present stage. The total cost will be £1½ million and it will take two and a quarter years to complete.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Has there been a change in hospital building policy at the Welsh Office in favour of community or general practitioner hospitals rather than


making sure that all our health areas have up-to-date district general hospitals in which, above all, there are far better infant mortality rates?

Mr. Roberts: There has been no change in policy. We have a number of district general hospitals yet to build. I think particularly of the hospitals at Wrexham, Bridgend and Llanelli.

Education Services (Local Authority Expenditure)

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make and publish a study of the effects on the education services in Wales of local authority expenditure policies for the financial year 1980–81.

Mr. Michael Roberts: My right hon. Friend expects to receive shortly a report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate in Wales and will make it available as soon as practicable.

Mr. Thomas: Will the Minister explain why this report has been delayed and why the comparable report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate in England is already available to the House?

Mr. Roberts: Although the Principality does many things in unison with England, I am sure that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) will be pleased to note that this was a separate inquiry which started last September and that we expect the report within a fortnight.

Mr. Thomas: Rubbish.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman says"Rubbish" from a sedentary position. What is rubbish is the nonsense which appeared in the Western Mail earlier this week.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister give a firm commitment to the effect that, Ewhen the Government review the procedures, there will be no cuts whatsoever in education facilities for handicapped children in Wales

Mr. Roberts: I can give no such assurance, because the decision will be made by the local education authorities.

Agricultural Department (Aberystwyth)

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons are employed in his agricultural department in Aberystwyth; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Including Trawsgoed and Pwllpeiran, 142 permanent staff and 12 casual staff are employed.

Mr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that the headquarters of the agriculture industry in Wales has been in Aberystwyth for the past 60 years? In view of the representations made to him by local representatives, is there anything that we can say or do to persuade the Minister to change his mind and not to transfer many of the top jobs to Cardiff?

Mr. Michael Roberts: I have received deputations from Ceredigion. It has put its case splendidly for the retention of Civil Service posts in Aberystwyth. I shall be reporting to my right hon. Friend and he will make a decision in the best interests of Welsh agriculture.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister explain why the proposal that essential Civil Service jobs should be transported from the centre of rural Wales to Cardiff was

made in the first instance? Do the Government believe in the decentralisation of Government offices where that is possible?

Mr. Roberts: The purpose of the proposed move is to bring together policy work on commodities and EEC matters and other policy work on consumer health.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Commission Minutes

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make the minutes of the proceedings of the Commission available for inspection by hon. Members.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: No, Sir.

Mr. Price: Presumably you also authorised that answer, Mr. Speaker.
Could we not have just a little of that open government that we are always calling for from the Executive from the administration of this House? We realise that some matters concerning the staff should properly be kept in confidence, but could not the general decisions which affect all Members of the House, particularly the working of the Select Committee system, be made available so that we can see what, to some of us, seems to be the curious logic behind them?

Mr. Bottomley: The House of Commons Commission is ready and willing to answer questions and occasionally to make statements. But, as my hon. Friend said, the minutes sometimes concern personal and intimate matters relating to the staff, and the House has never agreed to the reporting of such proceedings. I see no reason to change that arrangement.

Mr. Cormack: How often does the Commission meet?

Mr. Bottomley: Too often, but we are trying to cut down on that.

Mr. English: Since one-third of public expenditure and about 1 million people are responsible to authorities which publish their minutes, could my right hon. Friend explain why the Commission cannot do as local authorities do, which are also executive authorities, instead of acting like Select Committees of the House which are not executive authorities? Surely our Officers are no more sensitive than those of every local authority in the land.

Mr. Bottomley: I assure my hon. Friend that the Officers of the House are subjected by the Commission to interrogation of a very severe character.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Acting Profession

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will take steps to assist the acting profession.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): The Government already give substantial support to the professional theatre through the Arts Council. I shall gladly look at any ideas the hon. Member puts forward.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that members of the National Youth Theatre had to take to the streets last


week to protest about the withdrawal of the Arts Council grant because of Government expenditure cuts? Is it now official Government policy to discourage young people from going on to the stage, so that the only competitors for the actor and actress of the year award will be an ageing B-movie cowboy and his sidekick, the grocer's daughter?

Mr. Channon: I am sure that the hon. Member would want to be fair and accurate in what he says to the House. This is not to do with Government expenditure cuts; the grant to the Arts Council has increased with the level of inflation from £70 million to £80 million. The Arts Council decided to withdraw the grant from the National Youth Theatre on the grounds—as I understand it—that at a time when it was withdrawing grants from professional companies it was not right to subsidise amateurs. That was the Arts Council view.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the acting profession is well represented in the House, although not all are members of Equity? Does he agree that"Love's Labour's Lost" is running to a full house at present?

Mr. Channon: I do not think that I can recall any occasion on which I have disagreed with my hon. Friend, and this is not one.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister accept that the acting profession would be substantially financially assisted if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade would come to a realistic decision about royalties on video cassette recordings?

Mr. Channon: I must put that matter to my right hon. Friend. I note what the hon. Member says.

National Heritage Fund

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is yet in a position to announce next year's grant to the National Heritage Fund.

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I jointly announced on 20 February that the grant to the National Heritage memorial fund for 1981–82 will be £3 million, subject to the approval of Parliament.

Mr. Cormack: Is this an appropriate opportunity for my right hon. Friend to pay a tribute to Lord Charteris and the members of the fund for their first year's work? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sum, welcome as it is, underlines the fact that the fund can never be more than a safety net?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Trustees of the National Heritage memorial fund have done an excellent job in their first year. I am sure that they will continue to do more work in the public interest. The £3 million is only a safety net, but I hope that some modest extra grant will come from the underspend on acceptances in lieu which will go some way to help the fund.

Film-making

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what efforts he has made or plans to make to encourage low cost British film-making.

Mr. Channon: My responsibility in this area lies principally in funding the British Film Institute, whose

production board already promotes low-cost British filmmaking. The proposed grant-in-aid for the institute in 1981–82 includes a substantial increase to enable that activity to be further developed.

Mr. Jessel: In view of Britain's fine record in producing low-cost films, such as the famous Ealing Studios comedies, will my right hon. Friend see what can be done to restore that tradition? Will he ensure that all he pays in grants to the British Film Institute is spent in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Channon: All that I spend will be spent on low-cost productions to help British artists and British low-cost films. By far the lion's share will be spent by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who gets money from the Eady levy. I suggest that my hon. Friend puts a question to our right hon. Friend about that.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I should first declare an indirect interest in that my daughter is an actress, and a fully paid-up member of Equity. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the low-cost film industry in the United Kingdom has led the world, not only in the quality of its content but because it is low cost? Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his mind towards giving assistance, so that many unemployed actors and actresses can gain employment?

Mr. Channon: I agree with everything that the hon. Member says. In a modest way I am trying to increase the production board's budget from under £500,000 to about £750,000. I hope that that will be a modest help to British artists and directors who are trying to make their way in this difficult profession.

Victoria and Albert Museum (Slide Service)

Mr. Chris Patten: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the preservation of the Victoria and Albert museum's slide service.

Mr. Channon: I have received a large number of representations from a variety of sources. I am determined and confident that the slide service will continue after the end of this month. I propose to make a definite announcement very soon.

Mr. Patten: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that his statement will be welcome, because the threats to the future of the slide service have caused a great deal of anxiety in universities, colleges, colleges of art and schools? Will he be clearer about when he will be able to allay anxieties and make a full statement? Does he envisage some other body taking over the responsibilities for the service with an appropriate grant?

Mr. Channon: I hope to make an announcement within the next week or two. I accept what my hon. Friend says about the importance of the slide service. I receive an enormous correspondence about it daily. There are a number of alternatives, but I shall not comment further at this stage. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Arts Council (Grant Withdrawal)

Mr. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the outcome of discussions with the chairman of the Arts Council about withdrawal of grants to certain organisations for the year 1981–82.

Mr. Channon: In view of the concern expressed in the House on 2 February about the Arts Council's decision to withdraw certain grants, I wrote to the chairman following a meeting I had with him on 4 February. The correspondence has been published in the Official Report. In particular, I welcome the assurance that the Arts Council will tell arts organisations where their future grants may be at risk for whatever reason.

Mr. Mellor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling of many hon. Members that the manner in which the grants were withdrawn was somewhat arrogant, and all the more distasteful because it is public money and not the council's own money that it is dispensing and withdrawing? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Arts Council is aware that there is a better way of doing things? Is he also satisfied that certain worthwhile bodies that had their grants withdrawn, such as the National Youth Orchestra, will survive successfully?

Mr. Channon: I very much hope that bodies such as the National Youth Orchestra and others will survive with the help of private sponsorship. Those are amateur organisations and the Arts Council would say that it is anomalous that they should have received an Arts Council grant. I have drawn to the attention of the Arts Council the manner in which the grants were withdrawn, in view of the views expressed in every quarter of the House. I hope that the letter is a reasonably satisfactory outcome.

Sir David Price: Will my right hon. Friend make clear to those who represent him that an Arts Council grant is not for keeps and that every recipient must continue, in terms of the criteria laid down by the Arts Council, to justify reception of such a grant?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It would be wrong, once a body received an Arts Council grant, if that were to be given in perpetuity. Standards must be kept up and I believe that that is a general view in all quarters of the House.

Mr. Freud: While I accept what the Minister has said, will he try to persuade the Arts Council to make its letters to theatre companies easier to understand? In particular, will he look into the case of the Spectrum Theatre Company which has been told to spend less money on productions because the quality would thereby be enhanced?

Mr. Channon: If that is so, perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to send me the correspondence so that I may study it. I have attempted to persuade the Arts Council to write decent English, but I find that difficult, not only with the Arts Council but with a great many other bodies.

Mr. John Silkin: Does the Minister agree that all quarters of the House have found that the disposition of the

Arts Council money in this case has been somewhat capricious? He told us that he wrote to the Arts Council on 4 February. Is there any indication that it is preparing to review the disposition of its funds, rather than merely to tell people what their grants might be in the future?

Mr, Channon: I do not think that the Arts Council has any plans to review its dispositions for 1981–82. The criticism in the House was directed at the way that the council had announced its decisions rather than at the quality of those decisions. The correspondence between myself and the chairman has been published in the Official Report. If the right hon. Gentleman has any particular points arising from that, I shall be glad to take them up.

Mr. Cormack: Is this an appropriate opportunity for my right hon. Friend to point out that there is an excellent exhibition in the Upper Waiting Room explaining the work of the Arts Council and how its grants are worked out?

Mr. Channon: I am glad to take the opportunity to advise hon. Members to see that exhibition. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative in getting the exhibition put in the Upper Waiting Room.

Arts Budget (Accounting Officer)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science who will be the accounting officer for the arts budget.

Mr. Channon: As from the 1 April the accounting officer will be the permanent secretary of the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a substantial change from the situation that existed under his predecessor? How does he feel about being clasped under the wing of the permanent secretary of the DES? Does he feel that he will have proper control over the arts budget and that it will not be subject to erosion by others?

Mr. Channon: I am simply delighted to be clasped under the wing by which I am enveloped. I am totally satisfied about my independence. If I had not been, I would have been fully reassured by the letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to the hon. Gentleman in his capacity as chairman of the Select Committee.

Mr. George Cunningham: Could the accounting officer try to get a bit of the defence budget shifted over to him, because more is spent on music and bands in the Forces than is spent on music by the Arts Council?

Mr. Channon: Alas, the defence budget is not a matter for me.

Prime Minister (American Visit)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, I will make a statement on my visit to the United States.
I visited the United States from 25 to 28 February, accompanied by my noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I had talks in Washington with President Reagan, Vice-President Bush, Secretary of State Haig, Defence Secretary Weinberger and other members of the President's Cabinet. I also met members of both Houses of Congress. In New York I had a meeting with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The reception given to us in Washington was warm and generous, testifying to the health of the Anglo-American relationship and also to the excellent understanding that President Reagan and I had established even before either of us assumed our present responsibilities.
My talks with President Reagan and members of his Cabinet covered all the most important aspects of the international scene. The discussions were particularly timely, since the new Administration are still formulating their policy on many of the issues raised. At this early stage in the new Administration's period in office there was, of course, no question of new commitments being entered into by either side.
We exchanged views on East-West relations as a whole and, in particular, on the speech that President Brezhnev delivered a week ago. We agreed that it contains, besides much that is unacceptable for Britain and America, certain points that need to be explained and explored. That applies, for instance, to President Brezhnev's remarks about arms control, which both President Reagan and I see as a necessary complement to defence and deterrence.
On the Middle East, I explained the objectives of the European initiative stemming from the Venice declaration of last June. I pointed out that the initiative was intended not to compete with American efforts but to complement them. On Southern Africa, we agreed to keep closely in touch, especially in relation to Namibia—a problem to which the United Nations is increasingly turning its attention.
On El Salvador, the Americans expressed their concern about the developing conflict and in particular made clear their opposition to the support that the guerrilla movement is receiving from external sources. My noble Friend and I indicated that the British Government shared the American view of outside interference in the internal affairs of El Salvador. We explained that we condemned violence from whatever quarter it came and that we considered that the people of El Salvador should be able to determine their own future peacefully and democratically.
The President and I discussed the threat to the stability and security of the Gulf and South-West Asia following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I said that Britain shared the determination of the United States and of our other Allies to prevent Soviet encroachment in the region. We discussed the possible creation of a rapid deployment force, which would be available for use, if necessary, in an emergency in this or other areas of the world. The matter will be the subject of consultation. I made it clear that if such a force were created the United Kingdom would be ready to contribute to it, in the same way as, in

conjunction with the United States and France, we have already stationed naval units in the Gulf in response to the situation arising from the Iran-Iraq war.
In my discussion with Defence Secretary Weinberger I pointed out that this year and last the United Kingdom had increased its defence spending in accordance with the NATO target. The Defence Secretary and I agreed that there should be better balance in defence purchases between this country and the United States. That would lead to more effective use of the Alliance's resources.
On all the matters that we discussed President Reagan and the members of his Cabinet whom I met expressed their intention of consulting even more closely and frequently than in the past not only with Britain but with America's other allies. Indeed, that is already happening. I naturally welcome the American intention, and I hope that my own visit will have contributed to deepening the understanding on which such consultation must always be based.

Mr. Michael Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for agreeing to the demand that we made last week that she should make a statement today on her visit, but she could not speak on behalf of a united nation when she went to the United States unless she had changed both her tone and attitude on a whole range of issues on which she expressed views in the United States.
In the United States the Prime Minister gave several homilies on our domestic affairs, but does she appreciate that the most friendly advice that she could have given to the United States was not to follow her example? Is it really the case that, as her communique and today's statement seem to indicate, she did not at any time raise with the President the possibility of concerted action by the United States Government, the British Government and others on measures to defeat the slump? Did they not have any discussions on that subject?
Does the Prime Minister understand that on several matters of foreign policy that she mentioned, including El Salvador, the neutron bomb—I am sorry that she did not refer to that in her statement—and the measures that she is apparently contemplating for dealing with the situaton in the Persian Gulf, one of the obligations and duties of a British Government should be to warn of the perils that might follow if certain courses are adopted? The right hon. Lady says that she is against intervention in El Salvador, but is she against United States' intervention? As for the Gulf, does not the Prime Minister think that it would have been better if, before making her statements, she had discovered what would be the reaction to some of those statements in the places involved?
Does the Prime Minister appreciate that one of the greatest dangers for the United States would be to intervene at the wrong time, in the wrong place, on the wrong side? Does she not understand that that is truly the lesson of Vietnam, which she does not seem to have learnt?
On the question that the Prime Minister raised about detente and discussions with other Powers, we all appreciate that for detente to be successful there must be responses from the Soviet Union and others and we appreciate that, for almost the first time, the Prime Minister has had to emphasise the need for arms control, but does she not think that she would have assisted the


cause of detente more if she had not indulged in so much bellicose demagogy in the United States on the very matter on which demagogy is most out of place?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that I could not speak for a united nation. I want to make it clear that I could never speak for the leader of a party that believes in unilateral disarmament. So long as that is the case, I am afraid that the view of the United States is that the defence of this country would not be safe with such a party; nor would the defence of the West.
In regard to domestic affairs, we discussed with a number of people, including the President, the problems of world recession. It is clear that United States industrialists believe that there will be expansion during the second half of this year, as we also hope and believe will happen. We were very much aware that the origin of the world recession was a sharp increase in the price of oil that has occurred over the last 18 months. This matter occurs frequently. It is discussed between Heads of Government, including Heads of Government in Europe. The question is easier to pose than to find a solution to when there are regular meetings of OPEC and the price is raised. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the price of North Sea oil in this country was fixed by the previous Government to be at world price. That is in statute.
With regard to El Salvador, we made a statement before we went. That statement is available in full. We made it clear that we fully understood the strategic importance of the region of Central America to the United States. For the rest, I stand absolutely by the statement that we published, which was welcomed in the United States.
On the neutron bomb, no proposal has been put before us. The United States has said that any further move will be the subject of consultation with the allies.
With regard to a rapid deployment force, I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in a way we were ahead of the rest of the world. In the last defence White Paper, in the chapter on wider defence interests, we raised a similar subject, although not under that identical name, when we recognised that some of the threats were arising outside the NATO area, that the NATO Alliance could not respond under NATO command outside the area, and that members of the Alliance might therefore have to make particular arrangements. A whole chapter in the defence White Paper deals with the matter. In the debate on 28 October it was referred to again by my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he was Secretary of State for Defence. There is nothing new in that. The possibility of a rapid deployment force is being considered. I would point out that if we have one, at least we can respond to requests when trouble arises the world over. If we have not, we cannot, and by that time it will be too late to create it.
I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman said about detente. I would say that it must be fully reciprocated. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not wholly share my view. He makes certain comments about arms control. I again point out that the NATO decision on theatre nuclear forces was accompanied by a recommendation that talks on arms control of TNF should be entered into immediately. One such meeting was held. There have not so far been any further meetings. We both recognise, together with our European allies, the importance of that.
On TNF, we also recognise that the Soviet Union is well ahead of this country, the whole of Europe and the United States. It is about time that we ourselves, in order to deter, had a similar capability, unless that of the Soviet Union is to be substantially reduced.

Mr. Foot: On one or two of the matters mentioned by the right hon. Lady important questions arise that we shall wish to debate fully in the House. She refers to the rapid deployment force. If we were so far ahead of the rest of the world on the subject, as she said, why could we not have undertaken proper consultation with the countries involved? Why are those countries the first to be protesting at what she and, apparently, the President said?
On the subject of El Salvador, the right hon. Lady says that she stands by the statement that she made earlier. That statement itself, of course, was not satisfactory. Will she say now whether she is opposed to United States intervention in El Salvador, or is it only one-sided intervention to which she is opposed?
On the question of detente and the statement made by Mr.. Brezhnev, can the Prime Minister say when it is likely that some progress will be made in establishing a real conference in which these matters can be discussed? Did she make any real progress on such matters in her discussions in the United States?

The Prime Minister: We stand absolutely by the statement that we made on El Salvador before going to the United States. The first point is to try to stop the large supplies of arms to the guerrillas. I cannot comment on each and every activity of the United States. It would be most improper to do so.
With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman says about the capacity to operate outside the NATO area, I refer him to the part of the"Defence in the 1980s" White Paper, which says:
the Government believes that the Services should also be able to operate effectively outside the NATO area, without diminishing our central commitment to the Alliance… certain improvements in the Services' worldwide capability are being considered".
The document goes on to detail them, and adds:
Such improvements can be achievedat relatively modest cost, yet they give the Services significantly more flexibility to undertake tasks outside the NATO area. What is needed is the ability for all three Services to combine in providing a force of appropriate size and capability as may be necessary.
It seems to me that if people are really concerned, and truly concerned, in protecting the freedom of the West. since that freedom may be challenged anywhere in the globe, unless one considers the creation of a rapid deployment force one denies the capacity to meet that threat. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman may never wish to have a capacity to meet a threat. We wish to try to consider having such a capacity. We believe that one has to be prepared before such a threat arises.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned conferences about detente. We had the Madrid conference, but because the Soviet Union is still in Afghanistan in full force it was not a success. The best thing that could happen for the future of detente would be for the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan, and soon.

Mr. Foot: All these important questions will have to be debated in the House. I wish to put to the right hon.


Lady a question that she has not so far answered on the deployment force. Does she not think that the countries involved have a right to be consulted?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is exactly why I said in my statement that this matter would be the subject of consultation.

Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. Friend recall that many hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have been urging for some years that the defence of the West depended on defending the periphery, particularly the Gulf and Southern Africa? Is she aware that we well understood the difficulty of her Government in giving effect to our advice so long as the American Administration were vacillating, as they have done in the past? Will she allow me to offer my congratulations to her on having grasped, at once, the opportunity to align ourselves wholeheartedly with the new American Adminstration in saying that we would not only support but would join in the defence of our essential interests in the Gulf, Southern Africa or wherever it may be in defending the freedom of the free world?

The Prime Minister: This has been a subject of considerable debate for some time. It is clearly not possible to defend outside the NATO area unless we have a capability to do so. We were already making certain modest changes in that direction ourselves. It would seem right that we, with our allies, should discuss the possible creation of such a force. That is exactly what we learnt when we visited the United States. Of course, its use would also depend on consultation with States in the area.

Mr. David Steel: Since I was one of those who criticised the Prime Minister for the lack of a statement after her visit to Ireland, may I welcome the fact that she has made a statement today and is open to questioning? Does the Prime Minister recognise that her apparent accord with President Reagan is profoundly disturbing? It is right to be suspicious of Soviet activities and to demand withdrawal from Afghanistan, but does the right hon. Lady recognise that a growing generation is deeply worried about the waste of resources on the arms race by both sides of the Iron Curtain and by the habit of world leaders of keeping each other at arm's length and in personal ignorance and mutual hostility?
Will the right hon. Lady and President Reagan recognise that the way to defeat the march of world Communism is not by giving aid and comfort to other totalitarian regimes in El Salvador or Southern Africa but by demonstrating that the free democracies have superior values? Will she accept that her Government have singularly failed to do that, with cuts in overseas aid and broadcasting and increases in fees for overseas students, particularly from poorer countries? Does she accept that the process will not be helped by the hint of a return to the role of an uninvited world policeman?

The Prime Minister: I find it very alarming indeed that the Liberal Party, too, seems to be retreating from the first duty of defending our own freedom and that of the Western Alliance. It plainly does not have the guts to devote the resources. There would be no freedom and there would be no Western way of life if we were not prepared to defend it. If we did not, and trouble arose, we should

be the first to be criticised. Some of us lived through that period before. So long as this Government are here we shall never retreat to a failure to defend again.
Of course we should like to be able to defend at a lower level of balance. However, I wish that some people who feel as strongly as we do would direct their criticism to the Soviet Union, which devotes 13 per cent. of its gross national product to increasing armaments year after year after year.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the defeat of the march of world Communism. Our first duty to freedom, as well as defending it, is to proclaim our own.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Rhetoric.

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is rhetoric, which people behind the Iron Curtain cannot enjoy.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of her visit. The Leader of the Opposition asked about intervention in El Salvador. Does my right hon. Friend consider that there is a clear and logical distinction between the position of countries the efforts of which are directed to the support and defence of freedom and democracy and those whose efforts are directed to subversion?

The Prime Minister: I certainly recognise the difference that my right hon. and learned Friend points out. Our statement said:
Her Majesty's Government have now had an opportunity to study the information provided by the United States Government about arms supplies to insurgent groups in El Salvador. This points to activities which can only be regarded as gross interference in the internal affairs of El Salvador and Her Majesty's Government support the Government of the United States in calling for it to end.
Her Majesty's Government note, with concern, the continuing violence inside El Salvador and the suffering and hardship this causes to the people of that country. We condemn such violence from whatever quarter. Her Majesty's Government look to the Government of El Salvador to take all possible steps to protect the Salvadorean people from violations of basic human rights and, in particular, to exercise firm control over all Government institutions and organisations.
Her Majesty's Government consider that the people of El Salvador should be able to determine their own future peacefully and democratically.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that her hawklike utterances in the United States have brought nothing but shame upon the British people? Does she agree that it is now the duty of the House of Commons to apologise to the Americans and to say that her statement about the neutron bomb and the rapid deployment force in no way represents the majority view of the British people?

The Prime Minister: When it comes to statements that reflect shame on the British people, I leave it to the hon. Gentleman. He is expert.

Sir Hugh Fraser: May I compliment my right hon. Friend on her robust performance in the United States? May I also welcome her statement that the European initiative in the Middle East is complementary to that of the American Government? Am I right in believing that the European initiative is now behind the Camp David initiative, and that it will not diverge from it?

The Prime Minister: We are staunch allies of the United States and staunch believers in the defence of


freedom. On the Government Benches at least we are robust in that belief and will continue to be so. With regard to the Middle East initiative in Venice, I have said that it was meant to be complementary to the United States negotiations and not competitive in any way. The United States Government are considering how to take the negotiations forward. I doubt whether anything much will come out until after the Israeli elections. The statement that I made holds. Our efforts are meant to be helpful and not in competition.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from either side.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is it not bad that the Prime Minister should spread despondency and fear across the whole of the United Kingdom, among the 1 million people who are now unemployed but who had jobs when she came to power and among those who still have jobs but who fear that before long they will not? Is not the Prime Minister overstepping her remit when she makes statements about the Gulf area? Does she not understand that the"Imperial Power" days of this country are long gone, or does she want another diversion like Suez?

The Prime Minister: We have some ships in the Gulf area for the defence of the freedom of navigation, which is vital to the Western world. The ships were welcomed by the Gulf States and are still welcome in terms of keeping open the Straits of Hormuz.

Mr. Dennis Walters: Does my right hon. Friend feel that as a result of her talks with President Reagan he now accepts that while no settlement in the Middle East can be achieved without American involvement, European participation is also necessary? Does she agree that while military strength is required in the area it is no substitute for intelligent diplomacy and political initiatives on the line proposed by the European Nine in the Venice communiqué?

The Prime Minister: Sometimes military strength is required when political and diplomatic initiatives have failed. Of course we have to try such initiatives. It is also necessary when tyrants who are well armed have their way. It can also be necessary as a result of subversion. Of course we continue with every political and diplomatic effort to try to solve the problems, particularly in the Middle East. Our efforts are meant to be complementary to those of the United States. We all recognise that the Middle Eastern problem cannot be resolved except with the United States.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not correct to say that the United States rejected the need for a European initiative based on the Venice declaration largely because it suggests the involvement of the PLO without its prior renunciation of terror and without its prior recognition of the right of Israel to exist behind secure and recognised frontiers?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not right about the Venice declaration. I do not have a copy of the declaration with me, but: I know it pretty well. The declaration made it clear that the Palestinian people would have to accept Israel's right to exist behind secure boundaries and that Israel would have to recognise the

legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. That was the basis of the declaration. I take it ill from the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is not aware of that.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Did any discussions take place about the critical position of Poland, not least about the indebtedness of that country to various national and international banks in the United States and Western Europe, and the difficulties that might arise if those banks were unable or unwilling to continue with loans?

The Prime Minister: We are all aware of the critical political position of Poland, and we hope that she will be able to continue to find her own destiny in her own way. We are all very much aware of the difficult economic position in which she finds herself. As my hon. Friend knows, we have made arrangements to try to help her during the coming months by providing food, by rescheduling debts, and with certain further help on ECGD. I think that for the immediate future that decision was right.

Mr. David Watkins: Were there any consultations with the Governments of Gulf countries before the right hon. Lady made her public statement in America, and are any consultations now proposed to try to rectify the damage that she has done to British Gulf relations?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should understand that the possible creation of a rapid deployment force is not only to deal with difficulties that have arisen or that may arise in the Gulf; it is to deal also with other areas of trouble in the world. As I said in my statement, and as hon. Gentlemen would know if they had listened, it is to have a capability to try to deal with other trouble spots in the world. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me to continue, I shall do so.
We are talking about the possible creation of a rapid deployment force to meet possible trouble arising in the world. We do not need to have consultations—except with with our allies—about its possible creation. Of course, if it were created we should need to consult the host countries about its use.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is it not deeply disturbing that not a single Opposition Member has had a good word to say either for our allies or ourselves?.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, but occasionally the Opposition show themselves in their true colours.

Mr. Foot: We on the Opposition Benches have been firm friends of the United States for many, many long years, and we do not need any lectures from Conservative Members. Sometimes it is best for friends to speak out. That is what we are doing.
Will the right hon. Lady answer our questions about the Persian Gulf? Is she not now saying that she intends to have the consultation that should have taken place earlier?
Will the right hon. Lady take into account that, on all the evidence, it appears that many people in El Salvador have been murdered, or are in danger of being murdered, by people using arms imported from the United States? Is it not true that what is wanted in El Salvador is some sort of mediation?

Mr. Alan Clark: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman go there?

Mr. Foot: I know that some Conservative Members below the Gangway do not care a damn about the murders in El Salvador, but we do. Since the right hon. Lady confined herself to reading out what she had said before she went to El Salvador, can she say whether she had discussions in the United States with President Reagan to see whether there could be mediation, as was suggested by the West German Government? Should she not have supported that proposal if she wanted to defend the freedom that she prates so much about?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier question, I point out precisely what was in the statement that I read out:
We discussed the possible creation of a rapid deployment force which would be available for use, if necessary, in an emergency in this or other areas of the world. This matter will be the subject of consultation".
That is perfectly clear, and I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman persists in further cross-examination.
Of course one is concerned about the murder, violence and hardship in El Salvador, from whatever quarter they come. We made that perfectly clear in our statement. We continue to make it perfectly clear that the people of El Salvador should again be able to be free to decide their own future. One of the immense problems at present is the large amount of arms that is getting through to the guerrilla forces.
With regard to the reported initative of the West German Government, we have not been informed of any such initative.

Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider the rights of Back Benchers? We had a statement that lasted for 35 minutes, of which slightly under 20 minutes was taken up by interchanges between the Front Benches. Do you not think that the rights of Members of Parliament are such that hon. Members on both sides ought to have a larger share of time on a statement like this?

Dr. M. S. Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have it in your authority to prolong a discussion in a situation like this. May I suggest that on a matter as important to world peace as this the Prime Minister, who had her first meeting with the new President of the United States and has come back to report to the House, should be permitted to answer more questions? As you have the authority to do that, and as the business of the House is not heavy today, I ask that you prolong questions a little further.

Mr. Speaker: With regard to both points of order, the House knows what happened. There was a longer exchange between the Front Benches than sometimes happens, but it concerned a statement. It was not Question Time. I have allowed 35 minutes, and that is reasonable.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Third Amendment) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Gummer.]

CONTEMPT OF COURT [MONEY].

Queen's Recommendations having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to contempt of court and related matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Brooke.]

COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the better enjoyment of the Scottish countryside, and as respects the Countryside Commission for Scotland; and to amend the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other enactment of any increase in such sums attributable to any such Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Edward Penney (Disablement Benefit)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brook.]

Mr. Roger Stott: I wish to raise a problem that has faced one of my constituents, Mr. Edward Penney of 18 Lancaster Avenue, Horwich, regarding his claim for disablement benefit.
Edward Penney first claimed disablement benefit in March 1976, on the ground that he had been suffering from a prescribed disease known as byssinosis since 1 December 1976. He had had to leave his job in the weaving and winding shed of a cotton mill because he was physically unable to carry on, and he had been advised by his chest specialist to stop working. He was 52 years old.
He was first examined by a pneumoconiosis medical board—PMB—in June 1976. His claim was rejected, and the report concluded that he was suffering from acute bronchitis and high blood pressure. Subsequent examinations by Mr. Penney's general practitioner and his chief specialist disagreed with that diagnosis. Mr. Penney then reapplied for disablement benefit following the advice of the chest specialist at Bolton, who considered that Mr. Penney was suffering from a condition that was a direct result of working with cotton dust.
The second time Mr. Penney was examined by the PMB, following his application in September, there was one doctor—according to my constituent, the other left after a few moments—and the entire examination lasted approximately 10 minutes. The conclusion was that Mr. Penney's condition was due to cigarette smoking. There was no mention of blood pressure. For this examination neither Mr. Penney's general practitioner nor his consultant chest specialist was consulted in any way, and there was no report of the examination. There was only a rejection of the claim.
At this stage Mr. Penney was informed by an official at the disablement benefit office that there was no right of appeal to an independent medical tribunal. Fortunately, Mr. Penney had better information, having seen a newspaper clipping announcing new measures whereby a claimant could appeal from January 1977 provided he had applied for disablement benefit and had been rejected four times over a two-year period.
Mr. Penney applied again. He was examined by the PMB in April 1977. His claim was again rejected and the PMB this time considered that he was suffering from"obstructive airways disease".
I was contacted by Mr. Penney at about this stage, and I intervened by writing to the DHSS, asking why neither details of Mr. Penney's medical background nor consultation with his general practitioner or specialist had been sought by the PMB. The response to this was that the hospital case notes and chest X-rays had been obtained, but the reason given why neither the chest specialist nor Mr. Penney's GP had been contacted was:
It is the practice of these boards to obtain all the medical evidence which they think may help them in reaching their conclusions. It is entirely for them to decide what evidence they should obtain … These boards are independent statutory authorities and neither the Secretary of State nor any other Minister can comment on or intervene in their decisions".
However, despite this reply, a subsequent letter from the DHSS stated:

Although a right of appeal to the Medical Appeal Tribunal against the diagnosis decision of the Pneumoconiosis Medical Board exists only in certain limited circumstances, the claimant does not have such a right of appeal. However, in view of the letter dated 19th April 1977 from Roger Stott, MP and the letter dated 10th May 1977 from the claimant, the Secretary of State for Social Services has directed that the decision of the PMB of the 28th April 1977 should be referred to the Medical Appeal Tribunal".
Before continuing with the subsequent sequence of events that finally led to Mr. Penney's successful claim in 1980, I should say that several points have already emerged.
The first is the range of conflicting medical opinion. There is also the fact that Mr. Penney, his general practitioner and his chest specialist, who had been looking after him for years, had never been personally consulted. One would expect, surely, that any medical board that had the power to determine whether an applicant could or could not receive financial support because of his disabilities should be fully informed of the applicant's medical history. In Mr. Penney's case, during the course of his second examination and subsequent examinations, two independent specialists regarded as experts were consulted. Both of these experts found that Mr. Penney's symptoms were a result of working in a cotton mill.
Dr. Flindt, a lecturer in occupational medicine at the university of Manchester said:
in advanced cases it is virtually impossible to unscramble which symptoms and signs are due to byssinosis alone … Byssinosis is an unsatisfactory diagnosis, depending as it does primarily on the patient's history, but in his case it is my opinion that there are insufficient grounds for not giving him the benefit of any 'doubt'. A decision not to accept a patient as having byssinosis is of little importance when disability is minimal, but in his case it is substantial.
The second expert opinion was sought from Dr. Mann at the Halifax infirmary. His opinion was:
In my view Mr. Penney is suffering from byssinosis. This is an extremely difficult diagnosis to establish in that there are no pathagnomonic appearances on the chest X-ray, and one is entirely dependent on the patient's history and occupational exposure.
If Mr. Penney's case were an exception, if by some peculiar quirk his byssinosis symptoms did not conform with the majority, perhaps one would let the matter rest, but this unfortunately is not the case, as is shown by the findings of the TUC.
The TUC has been examining the question of the determination of industrial disablement benefit on account of pneumoconiosis. Its conclusions are based on a large number of cases over a number of years and therefore cannot be accused of being biased or taking one exceptional case. The TUC says:
The view has been expressed that both on the basis on which and the methods by which diagnosis decisions are made are far too restrictive, and the burdens of proof placed on the claimants are too great. It has been proposed that less weight be placed on radiographic evidence and that claims be determined on the basis of examination of a claimant's occupational history and actual disability, having regard to the balance of probabilities of his symptoms being associated with pneumoconiosis.
Surely the fundamental point is that Mr. Penney suffers byssinosis as a result of working in the cotton industry for 29 years. Whether his symptoms do or do not exactly conform with strict and narrowly defined criteria of the disease byssinosis misses the humanitarian point.
The TUC also found:
Examples have been cited where there are wide differences of opinion between the diagnosis of the PMB doctors and independent chest specialists consulted by the Union"—
as was the case with Mr. Penney.
There is a strong case—here is the kernel of my argument—for demanding a reappraisal of the criteria and methods used for determining whether claimants suffer from these industrial lung diseases. Particularly, there should be a more comprehensive examination of the sufferer's medical history, as it seems that these diseases cause certain problems of classification, X-rays are not always reliable, and symptoms vary from patient to patient. It is interesting to note that there have been considerable problems in diagnosing these diseases even after a post mortem has taken place. Time does not permit me this evening to go into the evidence that I have to substantiate that claim. The"benefit of the doubt" decisions have to be made in these cases.
The PMB system should work for and not against the sufferers and their dependants. One wonders how many sufferers of byssinosis with less persistence than Mr. Penney have been unsuccessful in claiming their rights to disablement benefit when one sees that in 1979, of the 268 PMB examinations, some 75 were diagnosed as having an industrial disease.
My second major point is in connection with the lack of information that would seem to be available about the full complexities of the claim system, especially as regards appeals. Mr. Penney is a member of a small union which was able to finance the first specialist independent report but simply did not have the resources or the knowledge fully to pursue Mr. Penney's case.
Mr. Penney, following his first medical tribunal, went to see a solicitor whose name he had come across from a television programme. As far as he and I were concerned, following a letter from a Minister at the DHSS, he had absolutely no right of appeal on medical grounds. The solicitor took up his case and recommended another independent specialist report. Dr. Mann, of the Halifax infirmary, requested a further appeal, which was granted. Mr. Penny, through his persistence and hard work, obtained his first appeal, but how many other people in a similar position would have won through? The first appeal was granted, it would seem, because Mr. Penny went to his Member of Parliament. The second appeal was granted through a solicitor he found by chance through a television programme, after Mr. Penny and I, his Member of Parliament, had been informed that no such appeal was possible.
The slowness of the procedure was also deplorable. On receiving the letter in November 1978, which said that the appeal had been granted, Mr. Penny did not receive word to appear before the board until 22 March the following year. The appeal failed, but Mr. Penny did not receive official notification of the results until 18 May. That followed a letter from the solicitor and inquiries by Mr. Penny at the disablement benefit office. Mr. Penny's general practitioner, however, had, paradoxically, been informed of the results on 26 April. There seems no logic in a system that does not consult a claimant's general practitioner about his health but informs the general practitioner first, rather than the claimant, of the results of any decisions.
In August 1980, Mr. Penney received several years' back pay of benefits, when it was finally determined by the doctors on the pneumoconiosis medical board that he was suffering from byssinosis. The doctor at the time could not understand what the problem had been for the

past four years. After four years, the man had gone through four medical examinations and two appeal procedures. He had the tenacity and personal courage to transcend the bureaucratic brick wall that had been placed in front of him.
This is one of the most disturbing cases that I have come across as a Member of Parliament. I hope that this debate will go some way towards redressing the balance in favour of those unfortunate people who suffer from this crippling industrial disease. They face an unprecedented and unmitigated response, both from the medical profession and from the DHSS. If this debate does nothing more it will have read into the record one man's personal suffering over five years and one man's personal triumph.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) for the clear expression of his concern for the victims of occupational diseases in general and, particularly, for those disabled by byssinosis, the cotton workers' disease. It is a concern that is shared by both sides of the House. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has pursued his constituent's case over the last five years.
In the International Year of Disabled People it is most important that we should not forget those whose disabilities have been caused by their work, and that we should make every effort to ensure that they receive the special benefits designed for them. Therefore, we owe the hon. Gentleman a debt of gratitude. Perhaps I may set the hon. Gentleman's case in context by saying a few words about byssinosis itself—for it is a condition that is not generally well known—and also about the way in which claims for the disease are handled under the industrial injuries scheme.
Byssinosis is a respiratory disease that occurs in workers who have been exposed to the dust from cotton or flax. Cotton dust is its most common cause and the disease is most prevalent among those people employed in cotton chambers, blowing rooms and carding rooms though the final processes of cotton production—spinning and finishing—can also cause the condition.
The chronic cough of some flax and hemp workers was mentioned in a treatise on occupational medicine as long ago as 1700. Even so, knowledge of the causes and effects of the disease has built up only very gradually, and even now is far from being complete.
Cotton byssinosis was first recognised as a compensatable industrial disease in Great Britain in 1940. That, of course, was in the days of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The cover was continued under the industrial injuries scheme introduced in 1948 and it has since been extended to cover workers in flax, so industrial injuries benefits are now available to anyone who has been employed since July 1948 in, as the regulation puts it,
any occupation in any room where any process up to and including the winding or beaming process is performed in factories in which the spinning or manipulation of raw or waste cotton or of flax is carried on".
Byssinosis presents particular problems of diagnosis. Its onset is gradual and it is not characterised by any abnormality of the chest that can be shown up by X-rays. Diagnosis in the early stages depends entirely on the medical and occupational history. The hon. Gentleman's remarks showed that most clearly.
The first symptoms usually occur after several years in employment, when the sufferer complains of tightness in


the chest on return to work on a Monday morning or following a holiday. By Tuesday, he usually feels normal and continues to do so for the rest of the week.
Fortunately, in many cases there may be no further progression, but in some the sufferer may notice, after some years, that the chest tightness persists till Tuesday or Wednesday. Finally, it lasts right through the week, although it is still usually worst on Mondays. Eventually the condition may become severe, with breathlessness on every day and a persistent cough and difficulty in breathing. While the early symptoms of byssinosis are reversible, permanent damage may occur with time, and the severe stage of the disease is indistinguishable from that of emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
Because of these difficulties of diagnosis, byssinosis claims under the industrial injuries scheme have always been dealt with by a special medical adjudication system. It is the same as that used to decide pneumoconiosis claims and claims for some other, less common, respiratory diseases. The reason is simply that ever since compensation was first provided for industrial lung diseases in 1919 it has been recognised that their diagnosis was best left to specially appointed doctors.
Under the industrial injuries scheme, these doctors are the members of the pneumoconiosis medical panels from whose members the pneumoconiosis medical boards are formed. It is their statutory duty to decide whether a claimant is suffering from byssinosis—or pneumoconiosis, as the case may be—and, if so, to assess the resultant disablement. They are completely independent of my Department, and no Minister can interfere with them in the exercise of their jurisdiction. The panel, based in Manchester, specialises in byssinosis and the extent of its experience may be gauged from the fact that it examined 400 such cases last year. I understand that the boards conduct an X-ray examination and test lung function in all cases unless it is thought medically undesirable to do so. They also consult records of hospital and general practitioners' treatment in appropriate cases and, of course, any evidence presented by claimants. The boards' decisions on diagnosis may be overruled by the more highly qualified medical appeal tribunal—the MAT—to which claimants may appeal under certain conditions.
The medical appeal tribunal, too, is an independent statutory body. It consists of a chairman, who is an experienced lawyer appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and two medical members of consultant status. In pneumoconiosis or byssinosis cases they are specialists in diseases of the chest. In addition to appeal cases, the MATs can also deal with cases referred to them by the Secretary of State under powers conferred by the Social Security Act where he thinks that a medical board's decision ought to be reconsidered.
Medicine is not an exact science and it is inevitable that differences of medical opinion will occur from time to time. But it is essential, under a statutory scheme for awarding benefit, that machinery should exist for making authoritative, final decisions on medical questions. MAT decisions on matters of medical fact are therefore final. As Mr. Justice Diplock, as he then was, said in the Divisional Court in 1958, the tribunals
use their own expertise to reach their own expert conclusions on the matters of medical fact and opinion involved.

Social security law does, however, make provision for the review of a diagnosis decision of medical boards and MATs if a board is satisfied by"fresh evidence" that it
was given in ignorance of, or was based on a mistake as to, some material fact.
For the benefit of non-lawyer Members, I should explain that"fresh evidence" in this context has been held by the courts to mean evidence that has come to the applicant's knowledge since the original decision was given and that could not by reasonable means have come to his knowledge before that time. In support of the finality of MAT decisions, the review provisions require that the tribunal's leave be given before one of its decisions may be reviewed. For completeness's sake, I should add that an MAT decision may be set aside by a social security commissioner if he finds it erroneous in law.
There is, of course, no restriction on the number of new claims that a peron may make, but a favourable decision on a new claim cannot cover a period covered by an unfavourable decision on an earlier claim unless that decision is reversed on appeal or review.
I turn to the case of Mr. Penney the vicissitudes of which the hon. Member has vividly recounted. Mr. Penney first made a claim in respect of byssinosis in March 1976. A pneumoconiosis medical board examined him but decided that he was not suffering from byssinosis and his claim was disallowed, as were subsequent claims later, in 1976 and in 1977. In 1978 he appealed to a medical appeal tribunal. He had no right of appeal at that time, but his case was referred to the MAT on behalf of the then Secretary of State. The tribunal upheld the decision of the 1977 board that byssinosis was not present.
However, an independent medical report was submitted to the medical appeal tribunal later that year and the tribunal granted leave for its decision to be reviewed by a pneumoconiosis medical board in accordance with the provision that I have already mentioned.
A fourth pneumoconiosis medical board therefore examined Mr. Penney in March 1979, but did not diagnose byssinosis, so his claim was once more disallowed. However, when Mr. Penney appealed to a medical appeal tribunal it declared, in February 1980, that the board's decision was a nullity because it appeared not to have treated the case as an application under the fresh evidence provisions but to have considered it as though it were a new claim.
Mr. Penney therefore made an application to be seen by another pneumoconiosis medical board, which, having considered all the available evidence, decided in 1980 that he was suffering from byssinosis. The board also reviewed the adverse decisions of the medical appeal tribunal of 1978 and was thus enabled to backdate its decision to that of the original claim in 1976.
The board assessed Mr. Penney's disablement at 50 per cent. from 2 March 1976, 60 per cent. from 2 March 1978, and 70 per cent. from 2 March 1979. I understand that the appropriate disablement benefit is now in payment and that Mr. Penney is also receiving the supplement known as special hardship allowance because his illness caused him to give up his job.
In retrospect, Mr. Penney must indeed feel that he has had to travel a long and very hard road to obtain benefit. I can readily understand that the adjudicating machinery that I have described and the way in which it operates may seem complex and confusing, or even frustrating, to him and to other claimants, particularly when they are in any


case beset with the problems of ill health. Of course, no system that deals with such difficult questions, on which experts conscientiously hold different opinions, can satisfy all those who pass through it.
We nevertheless believe that the basis of the adjudicating system is the best that can be devised in the present state of our knowledge. But we are constantly on the look-out for methods of improvement, just as we are always trying to find ways in which we can communicate more clearly to claimants for these and other benefits what is available and how to make a claim and, if necessary, an appeal. We are also always ready to consider any points that those who, like the hon. Member, have a genuine interest in the handling of industrial injuries benefits, may put to us.
As I have explained, I cannot interfere with or comment on the decisions of independent adjudicating authorities in

particular cases, but I hope that I have at least been able to explain something of why these authorities exist and how they work.
I am glad that this case eventually had a happy outcome, but lessons may be learnt from the history of Mr. Penney's illness and what he went through. I shall take careful note of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, and particularly what he said about the slow progress of the case. While I can make no promises tonight, I can assure him that we shall look into it and see what might be done in the future.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the notice of the House. It is a valuable contribution to advancing knowledge about this most difficult disease to diagnose.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.